UNIVERSE  OF  CAUK5RNIA  IRVINE  t!«fc*f 


r1 


ECONOMICS 


BY 


HENRY  ROGERS  SEAGER 

PROFESSOR     OF     POIJTICAT,     ECONOMY 
COLUMBIA    rVIVERSITY 


]Sew  York 

THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

1909 


0. 


J.  ^ 


y 


^^h,  s 


ECONOMICS 


A  LECTURE  DELIVERED  AT  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

IN  THE  SERIES  ON  SCIENCE,  PHILOSOPHY  AND  ART 

JANUARY  22,  1908 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/economicslectureOOseagiala 


ECONOMICS 


BY 

HENRY  ROGERS  SEAGER 

PROFESSOR     Or     POLITICAL     ECONOMY 
COLUMBIA    imiTERSITT 


ffew  York 

THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
1909 


HZ 

111. 7 
SV3 


Copyright,  1908, 
By  THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS. 


Set  up,  and  published  February,  1908. 


ECONOMICS 


When  Professor  Crampton  finished  his  lecture  on  Zoology 
a  few  weeks  ago  and  it  was  understood  that  the  social 
sciences  would  next  be  taken  up,  some  one  in  this  audience 
said :  "Now  they  will  begin  to  talk  about  what  they  don't 
know."  Whether  my  immediate  predecessor  overheard 
this  remark,  I  cannot  say.  If  he  did  he  replied  to  it  in  a 
way  that  it  would  be  vain  to  try  to  imitate— by  showing 
that  to  hear  about  what  is  not  known  may  be  quite  as  in- 
structive and  even  more  entertaining  than  to  hear  about 
what  is.  With  Professor  Robinson's  revelations  in  regard 
to  the  deficiencies  of  History  still  ringing  in  my  ears,  like  a 
call  to  the  confessional,  I  have  no  desire  to  make  extrava- 
gant claims  for  my  subject.  We  economists  do  still  talk 
about  what  we  don't  know.  We  have  reached  a  stage, 
however,  when  with  clear  utilitarian  purpose  we  talk  more 
and  more  about  what  we  should  like  to  know,  a  good  deal 
about  what  we  hope  to  know,  and  a  little,  a  saving  little 
about  what  we  think  we  do  know. 

Economics,  or  Political  Economy,  is  the  social  science 
which  treats  of  all  of  the  interests  and  activities  connected 
with  the  mundane  task  of  earning  a  living.  It  is  the  social 
science  of  business.  This  definition,  accepted  in  substance, 
if  not  in  form,  by  all  present-day  economists,  was  reached 
only  after  prolonged  discussion.  Passing  over  the  first 
beginnings  of  economic  speculation  in  oriental  and  classical 
literature,  we  find  that  in  Europe  in  the  Middle  Ages  the 
subject  was  cultivated  as  a  branch,  not  of  political  science, 

0 


but  of  ethics.  The  questions  most  actively  discussed  by 
mediaeval  thinkers  turned  not  on  the  explanation  of 
economic  phenomena,  but  on  their  justification.  Thus 
the  inquiry  was  not  as  to  why  the  rate  of  interest  charged 
at  the  time  was  high,  but  as  to  whether  there  was  moral 
justification  for  charging  any  interest. 

As  the  mediaeval  restraints  on  trade  and  industry  were 
relaxed  the  discussion  of  economic  phenomena  passed  from 
theologians  to  merchants  and  government  officials.  Taxa- 
tion, the  control  of  monetary  systems,  and  the  regulation 
of  commerce  were  the  principal  matters  considered  in  the 
fifteenth,  sixteenth,  and  seventeenth  centuries  and  some 
progress  was  made  toward  an  understanding  of  these 
subjects. 

In  the  latter  part  of  this  period  economic  questions  be- 
gan to  be  approached  from  the  standpoint  of  the  whole 
people  rather  than  from  that  of  kings  or  the  ruling  classes ; 
a  change  that  was  at  first  justified  more  on  the  ground  that 
an  impoverished  people  means  an  impoverished  sovereign, 
— pauvres  paysans,  pauvre  Royaume,  pauvre  Royaume, 
pauvre  Roij  as  Vauban  writing  in  1717  expressed  it — 
than  because  the  welfare  of  the  people  was  squarely  recog- 
nized as  of  primary  importance.  When  Adam  Smith  pub- 
lished his  "Wealth  of  Nations"  in  1776  this  broader  con- 
ception was  firmly  established,  but  Adam  Smith  himself 
still  thought  of  Political  Economy  as  the  art  of  making  na- 
tions wealthy  and  prosperous,  rather  than  as  the  science  of 
explaining  wealth  and  prosperity. 

It  was  not  until  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  when  Political  Economy  had  been  dignified  in 
England  by  recognition  as  a  college  discipline,  that  the 
subject  began  to  be  defined  and  treated  as  a  science.  The 
materials  for  the  new  science  had  all  or  nearly  all  been 
brought  together  earlier,  but  it  required  Ricardo's  com- 
bination of  business  experience  and  talent  for  abstract 

6 


reasoning,  James  Mill's  passion  for  clear  and  logical  expo- 
sition, and  the  leisure  for  academic  refinements  of  analysis 
enjoyed  by  Malthus  and  Senior  to  bring  the  different 
parts  of  the  subject  together  into  what  is  now  designated 
as  the  classical  or  orthodox  system.  That  system  has  in- 
fluenced so  profoundly  the  course  of  economic  thought 
even  down  to  the  present  day  that  a  brief  exposition  of  its 
leading  principles  must  be  given. 

To  understand  the  classical  system  it  is  necessary  to 
study  it  in  connection  with  the  industrial  situation  in  Eng- 
land at  the  time  that  it  was  formulated.  Though  ex- 
hausted and  impoverished  by  the  Napoleonic  wars,  that 
country  was  throbbing  with  the  great  economic  changes 
brought  about  by  the  inventions  and  discoveries  of  the  last 
half  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Manufacturing  industries 
were  growing  at  an  unprecedented  rate.  Population  was 
beginning  to  be  concentrated  in  Yorkshire  and  Lancashire 
where  the  coal  and  water  power  called  for  by  the  new  pro- 
cesses were  to  be  had  abundantly.  The  capitalist-employer 
was  coming  forward  as  the  directing  spirit  in  the  new  in- 
dustries and  the  opposition  between  his  interests  and  those 
of  the  landholding  aristocracy,  which  still  dominated 
Parliament,  was  beginning  to  stand  out  clearly.  Finally, 
in  consequence  of  the  war  and  of  the  partial  suspension  of 
the  country's  foreign  commerce,  high  prices  prevailed  for 
agricultural  products,  and  not  only  did  the  landlords  of 
the  country  enjoy  unusually  high  rents  from  their  estates, 
but  a  considerable  extension  of  agriculture  to  lands  that 
had  before  been  deemed  unfit  for  cultivation  was  ob- 
servable. The  interest  of  landlords  in  a  continuance  of 
these  high  prices  was  as  clear  as  was  the  interest  of  other 
classes  in  bringing  about  their  reduction. 

It  was  on  the  background  formed  by  these  industrial 
conditions  that  Ricardo  and  his  disciples,  combining  subtle 
reasoning  with  heroic  abstraction  from  the  complex  facts 

7 


of  life,  sketched  the  closely  related  theories  which  for  a 
time  seemed  to  raise  economics  to  the  position  of  an  exact 
science. 

The  factors  in  the  production  of  wealth  which  the  classi- 
cal economists  distinguished — land,  labor  and  capital — 
corresponded  to  the  three  great  social  classes  of  the  period, 
landlords,  wage-earners,  and  capitalist-employers.  Each 
of  these  factors  was  supposed  to  receive  a  share  in  the  pro- 
ducts of  industry,  the  familiar  rent,  wages  and  profits.  To 
explain  these  shares  was,  as  Ricardo  declared  in  his  epoch- 
making  treatise,  "the  principal  problem  in  Political  Econ- 
omy." 

Rent,  the  share  of  the  landowner,  was  explained  very 
simply  as  a  differential  return  due  to  the  superior  fertility 
or  the  superior  location  of  the  better  pieces  of  land  as  com- 
pared with  the  poorer. 

The  explanation  of  wages  was  more  complex,  since  two 
different  and  supplementary  theories,  one,  applying  to 
short,  the  other  to  long  periods,  were  advanced.  Over 
short  periods  wages  were  believed  to  depend  upon  the  pro- 
portion between  the  accumulated  fund  of  capital  and  the 
number  of  wage-earners.  This  was  the  famous  wages-fund 
theory  which  was  still  confidently  held  by  John  Stuart  Mill 
when  he  wrote  his  "Political  Economy"  in  1848.  As  stated 
by  Mill,  the  theory  is  that  "wages  depend  not  only  upon 
the  relative  amount  of  capital  and  population,  but  cannot 
be  affected  by  anything  else.  Wages  (meaning,  of  course, 
the  general  rate)  cannot  rise  but  by  an  increase  of  the 
aggregate  funds  employed  in  hiring  laborers,  or  in  a 
diminution  of  the  number  of  competitors  for  hire;  nor 
fall,  except  either  by  a  diminution  of  the  funds  devoted  to 
paying  labor,  or  by  an  increase  of  the  number  of  laborers 
to  be  paid."  This  theory  of  the  rigid  dependence  of  wages 
upon  capital,  with  the  practical  conclusion  deduced  from  it 
that  neither  labor  organizations  nor  factory  acts  could  do 

8 


anything  to  improve  materially  the  lot  of  wage-earners, 
served  more  than  any  other  part  of  the  classical  system  to 
earn  for  economics  the  title  of  "dismal  science."  That  this 
theory,  at  one  time  universally  accepted,  is  now  universally 
condemned,  may  be  cited  as  a  solemn  warning  against 
over-confident  generalization  touching  phenomena  too 
complex  to  be  explained  by  any  simple  formula. 

To  account  for  the  course  of  wages  over  long  periods 
the  classical  economists  relied  on  the  Malthusian  doctrine 
of  population.  Population,  they  thought,  is  constantly 
pressing  on  the  food  supply.  Any  increase  in  the  wages- 
fund  tends  to  encourage  an  increase  of  population.  In  the 
long  run  wages  tend  to  correspond  with  the  standard  of  liv- 
ing of  the  wage-earning  masses,  the  standard  of  subsist- 
ence, that  is,  which  wage-earners  insist  on  having  in  the 
sense  that  when  wages  fall  below  this  level  the  growth  of 
population  will  be  checked  until  they  are  brought  again  up 
to  it.  Malthus  at  first  thought  that  this  minimum  standard 
was  no  more  than  the  subsistence  absolutely  necessary  to 
enable  the  wage-earner  to  rear  a  family,  and  that  misery 
and  vice  were  the  divinely  ordained  means  of  maintaining 
the  necessary  balance  between  population  and  the  food 
supply.  Further  thought  convinced  him  and  the  other 
classical  writers  that  the  standard  of  living  is  elastic  and 
that  wages  determined  by  what  later  came  to  be  called 
their  "iron  law"  were  not  necessarily  low  wages.  They 
continued,  however,  to  think  of  wages  in  terms  of  food  and 
to  make  little  real  allowance  for  the  development  of  higher 
wants  on  the  part  of  the  masses. 

Ricardo's  explanation  of  profits,  the  third  and  last  share, 
was  the  least  satisfactory  part  of  his  "Political  Economy." 
Instead  of  attacking  the  problem  of  the  reason  for  profits 
directly,  he  had  recourse  to  the  method  of  difference  for  his 
explanation.  Having  asserted  that  all  wealth  annually 
produced  is  divided  into  three  parts,  and  having  explained 

9 


how  the  parts  called  rent  and  wages  are  determined,  it 
seemed  to  him  sufficient  to  declare  that  whatever  was  left 
over  must  constitute  profits.  It  remained  for  Senior  to 
attempt  to  explain  the  why  of  profits  on  independent 
grounds  and  he  did  this  by  formulating  clearly  the  so- 
called  abstinence  theory,  hints  of  which  are  to  be  found  in 
the  discussions  of  earlier  writers.  According  to  this  theory 
the  abstinence  of  the  capitalist  bears  the  same  relation  to 
profits  as  does  the  effort  of  the  laborer  to  wages.  Both  are 
elements  in  the  cost  of  production,  and  both  must  be 
recognized  as  ultimate  factors  in  the  determination  of 
economic  relations. 

In  the  completed  form  to  which  it  was  brought  by  the 
work  of  Senior,  the  classical  system  had  at  least  the  merit 
of  simplicity.  The  production  and  distribution  of  wealth 
seemed  to  be  completely  explained  by  half  a  dozen  clear- 
cut  propositions.  From  them  seemed  to  follow  by  inexor- 
able logic  the  principle  that  governmental  interference 
with  industrial  relations  must  prove  futile,  even  when  not 
positively  harmful.  And  so  persuaded  were  the  classical 
writers  of  the  correctness  of  their  doctrines  that  during  the 
fifty  years  from  1820  to  1870  most  of  their  attention  was 
devoted  to  the  task  of  winning  disciples. 

Already  in  1821,  James  Mill  brought  out  an  "Elements 
of  Political  Economy,"  based  on  lectures  first  delivered  in 
camera  to  John  Stuart  when,  in  his  twelfth  year.  About 
the  same  time  a  more  ambitious  effort  to  popularize 
economics  was  made  by  a  Mrs.  Marcet,  the  author  of  a  suc- 
cessful "Conversations  on  Chemistry."  Her  "Conversa- 
tions on  Political  Economy,"— a  treatise  in  which  a  "Mrs. 
B."  gravely  expounds  all  the  mysteries  of  the  classical 
system  in  reply  to  queries  propounded  by  an  ingenuous 
young  maiden,  Caroline,— was  received  with  approval  by 
the  leading  economists  of  the  day.  Even  J.  R.  McCulloch, 
the  narrowest,  most  dogmatic  and  most  prolific  of  the 

10 


classical  writers,  condescended  to  say  that  "the  little  work, 
though  puerile  in  its  form  and  from  a  female  pen,  is  not 
wanting  in  manly  excellence." 

But  perhaps  the  clearest  proof  of  the  confidence  with 
which  the  teachings  of  Ricardo  were  accepted  is  the  part 
which  our  own  broadly  cultured  Professor  McVickar 
played  in  this  effort  to  popularize  economics.  In  1835  he 
was  moved  to  bring  out  a  "First  Lessons  in  Political  Econ- 
omy for  the  Use  of  Primary  and  Common  Schools,"  and 
to  introduce  the  work  with  the  following  significant  sen- 
tences : 

"The  first  principles  of  Political  Economy  are  truisms 
which  a  child  may  understand,  and  which  children  should 
therefore  be  taught.  In  the  last  century  they  were  among 
the  speculations  of  the  learned ;  they  have  now  become  the 
heritage  of  the  nursery ;  and  the  only  difficulty  in  teaching 
them  in  after  life  arises  from  a  suspicion  excited  by  their 
very  simplicity." 

To  the  modern  reader  another  possible  explanation  of  the 
"suspicion"  to  which  Professor  McVickar  alludes  suggests 
itself  when  he  discovers  that  among  the  "truisms"  which 
had  become  the  "heritage  of  the  nursery"  are  the  labor 
theory  of  value  and  the  laissez-faire  theory  of  government. 

Much  more  fruitful  than  these  attempts  to  popularize 
economics  were  the  applications  that  were  made  of  the 
classical  theories  to  the  economic  and  political  problems  of 
the  day.  For,  however  inadequate  these  theories  may  seem 
as  a  basis  for  solving  the  world  problems  of  the  twentieth 
century,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  they  supplied  a  veritable 
arsenal  of  arguments  for  attacking  the  problems  which 
confronted  England  during  the  period  of  their  greatest 
influence.  In  fact,  the  inadequacy  of  the  classical  theories 
— if  we  except  the  wages-fund  theory,  the  most  serious,  not 
to  say  vicious  error  of  the  older  writers — came  from  their 
being  only  half-true  rather  than  untrue.     For  the  most 

11 


part  they  have  been  supplemented  rather  than  superseded 
by  the  theories  formulated  since  1870.  Among  the  practi- 
cal reforms  in  England  which  should  in  justice  be  credited 
to  the  classical  economists  and  their  disciples  were  the 
establishment  of  the  gold  standard,  the  reform  of  Parlia- 
ment, the  reform  of  the  poor  law,  the  abolition  of  slavery 
and  the  repeal  of  the  corn  laws.  It  was  not  until  these 
reforms  were  accomplished  that  any  serious  effort  was 
made  to  re-examine  the  accepted  theoriesiand  adapt  them 
to  changing  industrial  conditions. 

The  arguments  which  served  at  length  to  discredit  ^the 
theories  of  the  classical  system  were  advanced  by  at  least 
five  different  types  of  thinkers.  First,  there  were  the 
moralists  who  attacked  the  system  on  the  ground  that  the 
industrial  society  to  which  its  theories  applied  stood  self- 
condemned.  They  ridiculed  economics  as  "the  dismal 
science"  and  insisted  that  the  "economic  man"  of  whom  the 
economists  prated  existed  only  in  the  imaginations  of  these 
"closet  philosophers."  Not  a  little  encouragement  to  this 
line  of  criticism  came  from  the  economists  themselves. 
Thus,  John  Stuart  Mill  broke  so  completely  with  the 
principles  that  he  had  himself  expounded  that  before  his 
death  he  became  an  avowed  socialist.  Even  Cairnes,  who 
made  an  effort  as  late  as  1874  to  rehabilitate  the  classical 
theories,  showed  so  little  enthusiasm  for  his  task  that  he 
declares  that  co-operation  "offers  the  sole  escape  from  a 
hopeless  situation."  With  such  damaging  admissions  com- 
ing from  the  leaders  it  was  not  surprising  that  there  was 
dissatisfaction  in  the  ranks. 

The  second  group  of  critics  were  the  socialists,  led  by 
Karl  Marx.  They  professed  to  accept  the  teachings  of 
Ricardo  and  asked  only  that  his  theories  be  followed  to 
their  logical  conclusion.  For  them  this  was  summed  up  in 
the  proposition  that  all  incomes  except  wages  are  the  re- 
sult of  legalized  robbery. 

12 


More  important  was  the  third  line  of  attack,  the  accu- 
mulation of  facts  both  past  and  present  by  disciples  of  the 
German  Historical  School.  These  showed  not  only  that 
the  premises  which  the  economists  advanced  as  universally 
true  applied  only  to  a  few  countries,  and  to  them  only  at 
particular  periods  of  their  historical  development,  but  also 
that  the  conclusions  which  the  economists  deduced  from 
these  premises  failed  to  correspond  with  experience. 

The  fourth  influence  was  the  progress  of  biological 
studies  and  the  growing  appreciation  of  the  importance  of 
change  in  connection  with  all  forms  of  organic  life.  From 
thinking  of  human  nature  and  social  institutions  as  rela- 
tively fixed,  all  students  of  social  phenomena  were  led  to 
think  of  them  as  undergoing  a  gradual  evolution.  This 
new  conception  was  obviously  inconsistent  with  the  hard 
and  fast  principles  of  classical  economics. 

Finally  and  most  important  of  all  was  the  more  search- 
ing examination  to  which  the  economists  subjected  their 
own  theories.  Thornton  and  others  attacked  the  wages- 
fund  theory  and  succeeded  in  securing  a  formal  recantation 
from  John  Stuart  Mill,  upon  whose  authority  much  of  the 
later  day  vogue  of  the  theory  had  depended.  Menger  in 
Austria  and  Jevons  in  England  showed  the  inadequacy  of 
the  cost-of -production  theory  of  value  and  proposed  in  its 
place  the  marginal  utility  theory,  now  very  generally 
accepted.  Our  own  Walker  and  others  showed  the  neces- 
sity of  recognizing  other  shares  in  distribution  than  the 
traditional  rent,  wages  and  profits,  and  thus  prepared  the 
way  for  a  more  accurate  analysis.  Similarly,  the  Mal- 
thusian  doctrine  of  population  and  the  abstinence  theory 
of  interest  were  shown  to  be  untenable  in  the  forms  in 
which  the  classical  writers  had  advanced  them,  and  less 
simple  theories  having  more  regard  to  the  complexities  of 
the  subject  were  proposed  to  take  their  places. 

Through  the  combined  operation  of  all  of  these  influ- 

13 


ences  the  inadequacy  of  the  classical  system  was  proved 
both  inductively  and  deductively,  and  the  way  was  pre- 
pared for  the  more  careful  and  scientific,  if  less  confident 
and  sweeping  theories  of  economics  which  are  now  ac- 
cepted. 

In  turning  from  this  brief  survey  of  the  history  of  the 
science  of  economics  to  an  account  of  present-day  princi- 
ples and  problems,  I  am  filled  with  renewed  admiration  for 
my  predecessors  who  have  succeeded  in  telling  so  much 
about  their  subjects  in  the  limited  time  allotted  to  them. 

Although  it  is  one  of  the  newest  of  the  sciences,  eco- 
nomics has  already  been  subdivided  into  many  special 
branches,  to  any  one  of  which  a  lecture  such  as  this  might 
profitably  be  devoted.  Statistics,  mathematical  economics, 
economic  theory,  public  finance,  practical  economics,  eco- 
nomic history,  and  social  economy  are  the  branches  at 
present  represented  through  special  courses  or  series  of 
courses  offered  at  this  University.  In  each  of  these  notable 
progress  is  being  made.  Not  only  is  our  mastery  of  the 
essential  facts  in  regard  to  industrial  conditions  in  this 
and  other  lands  becoming  every  year  more  complete,  but 
greater  care  is  constantly  being  exercised  in  the  formula- 
tion of  the  premises  to  be  used  in  economic  reasoning  and 
in  the  application  of  theoretical  conclusions  to  practical 
problems.  Notwithstanding  this  progress,  the  present 
state  of  development  of  the  science  is  still  one  of  transition. 
The  dogmatic  orthodoxy  of  the  past  has  been  succeeded  by 
an  exuberant  heterodoxy  which  gives  so  great  prominence 
to  the  disagreements  among  economists  that  the  agree- 
ments are  easily  overlooked.  This  disputatious  period  is 
gradually  passing  in  its  turn  and  a  new  body  of  principles 
is  emerging  which  entitles  economics  still  to  be  regarded  as 
the  most  exact  of  the  relatively  inexact  social  sciences. 

One  of  the  chief  difficulties  with  which  economists  have 
all  along  contended  is  the  inexactness  of  their  terminology. 

U 


It  is  a  significant  indication  of  present  tendencies  that  at 
the  last  meeting  of  the  American  Economic  Association  a 
standing  committee  was  appointed  on  "agreements  in 
political  economy."  The  principal  task  assigned  to  this 
committee  is  that  of  formulating  standard  definitions  of 
the  more  common  economic  terms.  It  is  hoped  that  by 
this  means  a  more  truly  scientific  terminology  may  gradu- 
ally be  developed,  which  will  not  only  contribute  greatly 
to  clearness  of  thought,  but  put  an  end  to  the  merely  verbal 
controversies  to  which  in  the  past  far  too  much  attention 
has  been  given. 

In  the  limited  time  that  remains  to  me  it  will  be  impos- 
sible to  deal  with  many  of  the  phases  of  contemporary 
economics.  Great  as  is  the  temptation  to  enter  upon  a 
discussion  of  those  problems  that  are  just  now  most  promi- 
nently before  us  in  the  United  States,  the  currency  ques- 
tion, the  railroad  question,  the  trust  question  and  the  tariff 
question,  I  feel  that  I  shall  give  a  truer  impression  of  the 
relative  significance  of  different  parts  of  economics  if  I 
pass  them  by  in  favor  of  problems  pertaining  to  labor. 
For,  as  Professor  Marshall  has  said,  it  is  after  all  the 
question  "whether  it  is  really  impossible  that  all  should 
start  in  the  world  with  a  fair  chance  of  leading  a  cultured 
life,  free  from  the  pains  of  poverty  and  the  stagnating 
influences  of  excessive  mechanical  toil  ******* 
which  gives  to  economic  studies  their  chief  and  their  high- 
est interest."  To  explain  why  and  in  what  respects  the 
present  attitude  of  economists  toward  labor  problems  dif- 
fers from  that  of  the  classical  writers,  I  must  begin  where 
I  left  off  in  expounding  their  theories, — with  the  problem 
of  distribution. 

The  explanation  of  the  division  of  the  annual  products 
of  industry  into  the  shares  into  which  they  are  distributed, 
that  is  now  widely,  though  not  yet  universally  accepted  by 
economists,  is  conveniently  designated  as  the  "productivity 

15 


theory."  According  to  this  theory  as  it  applies,  for  exam- 
ple, to  the  share  of  the  annual  produce  that  goes  to  wage- 
earners,  it  is  not  the  fund  of  wealth  that  has  already  been 
accumulated  that  determines  wages  ( as  held  by  the  wages- 
fund  theorists ) ,  but  rather  the  flow  of  wealth  which  is  be- 
ing currently  produced.  Employers,  when  deciding  what 
wages  they  can  afford  to  pay,  consider  not  the  capital  which 
they  happen  to  have,  but  the  probable  value  of  what  their 
employees  will  produce.  Having  decided  what  their  em- 
ployees are  worth  to  them,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  what 
the  part  of  the  product  attributable  to  their  labor  is 
worth,  they,  of  course,  try  to  secure  their  services  for  less. 
If  competition  is  perfectly  free,  however,  and  employees 
are  alert  to  their  own  interest  and  willing  to  shift  from 
one  employer  to  another  for  the  sake  of  higher  wages,  the 
competitive  demand  for  labor  among  employers  will  force 
wages  up  until  there  is  little  margin  between  the  wages 
paid  and  the  value  of  what  labor  produces. 

In  the  same  way  that  it  tends  to  assign  to  wage-earners 
the  share  of  the  product  that  is  imputable  to  their  labor,  the 
free  play  of  competitive  forces  tends  to  assign  to  land  and 
the  other  instruments  of  production  their  respective  shares 
of  the  joint  product.  This  does  not  mean,  of  course,  that  the 
tendency  of  free  competition  is  to  deprive  employers  of  their 
profits.  The  productivity  theory  makes  full  allowance  for 
ordinary  profits,  or  wages  of  management,  and  also  for  the 
additional  profit  or  loss  which  falls  to  the  employer  because 
he  assumes  the  risks  of  business.  It  asserts  merely  that 
competition  tends  to  cause  all  the  different  shares  in  dis- 
tribution to  correspond  to  the  parts  of  the  product  that 
are  economically  imputable  to  the  services  which  the  cor- 
responding factors  render  in  production.  The  explanation 
of  the  process  by  which  this  economic  imputation  is  carried 
out  amidst  the  complexities  of  modern  business  relations  is 
one  of  the  most  difficult  tasks  of  economic  analysis.    For 

16 


proof  that  it  is  carried  out,  I  must  refer  you  to  the  technical 
manuals,  of  which,  as  President  Butler  once  said  of  small 
colleges,  three  are  supplied  by  Columbia. 

In  accepting  the  productivity  theory  of  competitive  dis- 
tribution, economists  do  not  ignore  the  fact  that  the  as- 
sumed state  of  perfectly  free  competition  is  very  far  from 
being  realized  in  actual  industrial  society.  They  recognize 
fully  that  monopoly,  to  mention  only  one  complicating 
factor,  plays  an  equally  important  role  with  competition  in 
determining  actual  distribution.  Thus  the  laws  of  com- 
petitive distribution  are  merely  a  point  of  departure  for 
studying  the  problems  of  actual  distribution.  To  under- 
stand the  latter,  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  element  of 
friction  in  economic  life  in  somewhat  the  same  way  that 
such  allowance  is  made  in  physics  in  applying  the  laws  of 
motion  to  the  actual  movements  of  falling  bodies.  The 
chief  difference  is  that  in  economics  the  element  of  friction 
is  often  of  such  dominating  importance  that  the  utility  of 
the  explanation  of  what  would  happen  if  competition  were 
free  is  sometimes  questionable. 

Recognizing  fully  the  limited  application  of  the  pro- 
ductivity theory,  I  nevertheless  believe  that  acceptance 
of  it  has  been  an  important  factor  in  changing  economics 
from  a  "dismal  science"  to  a  science  full  of  promise  for 
the  future  of  industrial  society.  Merely  to  assert  that 
wages  depend  fundamentally  upon  what  the  wage-earner 
produces  is  to  make  an  appeal  to  the  ambition  and  enter- 
prise of  the  working  masses.  If  wages  are  low,  a  certain 
way  to  raise  them  is  to  make  labor  more  efficient.  Thus 
the  interest  of  wage-earners  becomes  identical  with  the 
interest  of  the  whole  community.  Rising  wages  mean  an 
increasing  output  of  wealth  on  the  part  of  wage-earners. 
They  are  not  opposed  to  the  interest  of  any  other  class — 
to  that  of  employers,  of  capitalists,  or  of  land-owners.  On 
the  contrary,  the  increasing  wellbeing  of  wage-earners 

17 


means  increased  wellbeing  for  all  classes.  Thus  all  should 
unite  in  promoting  plans  for  the  better  education  and 
training  of  the  world's  workers,  and  the  benefits  which 
will  flow  from  such  efforts  will  be  cumulative,  because  the 
higher  earnings  of  the  more  efficient  workers  of  one  gen- 
eration will  almost  inevitably  be  used  in  part  for  the  benefit 
of  the  workers  of  the  next. 

The  acceptance  of  this  theory  has  also  led  to  a  clearer 
analysis  of  the  part  which  capital  plays  in  production.  The 
classical  economists  when  they  spoke  of  capital  habitually 
thought  of  the  imaginary  wages-fund.  The  principal 
function  of  capital  to  them  was  to  feed  and  support  the 
laboring  masses  while  they  were  devoting  themselves  to 
the  production  of  unfinished  forms  of  wealth.  To  modern 
analysis  the  principal  function  of  capital  is  to  supply  the 
tools,  machines,  railroads,  factories,  and  other  instruments 
which  so  enormously  increase  the  productiveness  of  indus- 
try. While  denying  the  existence  of  a  special  wages-fund, 
economists  do  not  of  course  ignore  the  fact  that  it  is  a 
second  function  of  capital  to  make  possible  the  elaborate 
division  of  labor  and  the  roundabout  methods  of  production, 
which  in  their  turn  contribute  so  largely  to  the  productive- 
ness of  industry.  In  order  that  production,  distribution 
and  consumption  may  go  on  regularly  and  continuously,  a 
vast  accumulation  of  wealth  in  the  form  of  raw  materials 
and  partially  finished  and  finished  commodities  is  neces- 
sary. By  recognizing  that  it  is  the  function  of  capital  to 
supply  the  instruments  of  production  as  well  as  this  fund 
of  materials,  economists  now  define  the  relation  between 
labor  and  capital  in  a  way  that  neither  humiliates  the 
workman  nor  belittles  the  importance  of  the  part  which 
capital  plays  in  production. 

A  third  important  consequence  of  acceptance  of  the 
theory  that  wages  tend  to  equal  what  labor  produces  is 
that  economists  have  come  to  feel  that  this  is  the  lowest 

18 


standard  of  remuneration  that  is  compatible  with  justice. 
The  worker  is  entitled  at  least  to  the  full  equivalent  of 
what  he  produces.  This  is  the  moral  principle  which 
economists  now  very  generally  apply  to  the  labor  situa- 
tions on  which  they  have  to  pass  judgment.  Very  often, 
perhaps  more  often  than  not,  the  ideal  standard  of  the  pro- 
ductivity theory  is  not  realized  in  practice.  Wages  fall 
below,  sometimes  far  below  the  fair  equivalent  of  what 
labor  produces.  This  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  a  given 
branch  of  industry  is  controlled  by  a  monopoly ;  to  an  open 
or  tacit  combination  among  employers  not  to  spoil  the 
labor  market  by  bidding  up  wages;  to  the  ignorance,  in- 
ertia or  timidity  of  wage-earners  themselves ;  or  to  the  fact 
that  the  advantages  of  industrial  progress  redound  first  to 
the  benefit  of  employers  and  that  it  takes  time  for  wages  to 
be  advanced  so  that  the  workers  get  their  share.  Recogni- 
tion that  some  or  all  of  these  influences  may  prevent  work- 
men from  getting  the  wages  to  which,  according  to  the 
productivity  theory,  they  are  economically  entitled,  has 
made  economists  much  more  sympathetic  toward  labor 
organizations  than  they  used  to  be.  From  condemning 
them  as  useless,  if  not  harmful,  they  have  changed  to  ap- 
proving them  as  necessary  means  of  putting  wage-earners 
in  a  position  to  bargain  on  equal  terms  with  their  em- 
ployers. When  the  latter  are  giant,  semi-monopolistic 
corporations,  as  is  so  commonly  the  case  today,  it  is  clear 
that  the  workmen  stand  little  chance  of  getting  a  fair  com- 
petitive wage  unless  they  organize  to  oppose  combination 
on  the  side  of  capital  with  combination  on  the  side  of  labor. 
Thus,  in  place  of  the  older  conception  of  a  competitive 
labor  market  in  which  isolated  employers  competed  against 
one  another  in  bargaining  to  secure  the  services  of  isolated 
and  competing  wage-earners,  the  present  conception  of  a 
desirable  labor  situation  is  one  in  which  honestly  and  intel- 
ligently directed  labor  organizations  enter  into  collective 

19 


bargains  with  honestly  and  intelligently  directed  em- 
ployers' combinations.  It  is  believed  that  such  a  situation 
will  not  only  result  in  fairer  rates  of  wages,  but  that  it  will 
serve  as  an  effective  restraint  on  the  embittered  conflict  be- 
tween capital  and  labor  which  is  now  such  a  menace  to 
continuous  prosperity. 

The  same  considerations  that  have  led  economists  to  ap- 
prove of  labor  organizations  have  made  them  advocates  of 
legislative  interference  to  control  the  conditions  of  the 
labor  contract.  Reasonable  laws  regulating  the  working 
hours  of  women  and  children  and  prescribing  standards  of 
sanitation  and  safety  for  the  benefit  of  all  employees  are 
today  universally  approved  by  economists.  The  legal 
regulation  of  the  hours  of  labor  of  adult  men  is  less  gen- 
erally demanded,  but  the  industrial  development  of  pro- 
gressive countries  is  so  clearly  away  from  the  situation  in 
which  effective  individual  liberty  results  from  a  policy  of 
non-interference  on  the  part  of  the  government  that  the 
argument  for  protective  labor  laws  for  all  classes  is  steadily 
gaining  adherents.  The  object  and  tendency  of  such  laws, 
as  economists  now  recognize,  are  not  to  repress  individual 
initiative  and  enterprise,  but  rather  to  determine  the  plane 
on  which  initiative  and  enterprise  shall  act.  Enterprise 
which  spends  itself  in  devising  new  methods  for  sweating 
the  last  ounce  of  productive  power  out  of  underpaid  and 
ill-fed  employees  serves  no  useful  purpose.  It  is  much 
better  that  the  same  energy  and  ingenuity  be  directed 
toward  introducing  more  efficient  tools  and  machinery  or 
a  better  division  of  labor,  wage-earners  meantime  being 
protected  from  over-work  under  unwholesome  conditions 
by  definite  legal  prescriptions. 

Economists  approve  of  trade  unions  and  labor  laws, 
because  they  recognize  that  their  assistance  is  needed  to 
protect  wage-earners  from  the  destructive  effects  of  an 
unfair,  because  unequal,  competition.    But  their  program 

20 


on  behalf  of  wage-earners  does  not  stop  here.  Side  by 
side  with  the  principle  that  wage-earners  are  entitled  at 
least  to  the  full  equivalent  of  what  their  labor  produces, 
most  economists  would  now  put  the  further  principle  that 
wage-earners  should  be  protected  from  losing  through  ac- 
cident or  misfortune  the  capacity  to  maintain  the  standards 
of  living  to  which  they  have  become  accustomed. 

Among  the  contingencies  which  frequently  prevent  the 
families  of  independent  and  self-respecting  wage-earners 
from  preserving  their  standards  of  living  the  principal  are 
sickness,  accident,  unemployment,  premature  death  and 
old  age.  One  way  of  providing  against  these  evils  and  the 
way  on  which  the  classical  economists  relied  is  for  every 
wage-earner  to  accumulate  an  independent  fund  of  capital. 
Desirable  as  would  be  such  a  development,  no  one  can  deny 
that  the  progress  which  wage-earners  have  made  in  this 
direction  is  exceedingly  slight.  Moreover  it  is  not  the 
most  economical  and  intelligent  way  to  meet  these  con- 
tingencies to  which  all  are  liable,  but  which  the  great  ma- 
jority escape  in  whole  or  in  part.  A  better  way  is  through 
the  machinery  of  insurance,  by  which  a  common  fund  is 
created  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  suffer  from  these  evils 
at  a  minimum  of  expense  to  the  larger  number  who  are 
exposed  to  them. 

Insurance  against  accidents,  premature  death  and  old 
age,  and  even  against  sickness,  have  long  been  furnished 
by  commercial  insurance  companies.  The  trouble  is  that 
those  who  would  be  most  benefited  by  this  insurance  are 
either  indifferent  to  it  or  unable  to  bear  the  expense  of 
securing  it.  Under  these  circumstances  some  plan  of 
universal  insurance  at  the  expense  either  of  the  wage- 
earners  to  be  benefited,  of  their  employers  or  of  the  state, 
seems  alone  suited  to  the  necessities  of  the  situation. 

Time  will  permit  only  the  briefest  reference  to  the  dif- 
ferent plans  of  universal  insurance  against  these  evils 

21 


which  are  being  tried.  Germany,  as  is  well  known,  has 
developed  a  system  of  universal  compulsory  insurance 
against  all  of  them  except  unemployment.  The  United 
Kingdom  has  recently  extended  its  system  of  workmen's 
compensation  for  industrial  accidents  until  it  includes  not 
only  practically  all  employments,  but  also  certain  diseases 
contracted  in  connection  with  the  occupation.  Denmark, 
New  Zealand  and  New  South  Wales  have  established  old 
age  pensions,  and  it  appears  probable  that  the  United 
Kingdom  and  France  will  also  establish  them  so  soon  as 
the  additional  revenues  which  they  necessitate  can  be  pro- 
vided. Finally,  certain  German  and  Swiss  cities  have  ex- 
perimented with  systems  of  municipal  insurance  against 
losses  due  to  unemployment. 

The  point  I  wish  to  emphasize  is  that  these  measures, 
which  to  the  classical  economists  would  have  seemed  op- 
posed to  all  of  the  principles  of  economics  and  sound 
statesmanship,  are  now  approved  in  substance  by  a  large 
and  growing  body  of  the  younger  generation  of  econom- 
ists. More  careful  analysis  and  completer  knowledge  of 
the  facts  of  industrial  life  have  discredited  many  of  the 
arguments  which  the  older  economists  urged  against  such 
measures,  and  experience  of  the  actual  results  that  follow 
from  them  has  shown  how  groundless  was  the  fear  that 
they  would  prove  subversive  of  public  order  and  good 
government. 

The  reasons  for  this  change  in  the  attitude  of  economists 
may  be  illustrated  by  taking  up  in  a  more  concrete  way 
one  of  these  contingencies  which  it  is  proposed  to  pro- 
vide against  by  some  plan  of  universal,  state-controlled 
insurance.  The  change  in  opinion  in  reference,  for  ex- 
ample, to  industrial  accidents  is  instructive.  The  older 
economists  thought  that  competition  would  cause  wages  to 
be  sufficiently  higher  in  dangerous  trades  to  compensate 
workmen  for  the  risks  they  run.     Wage-statistics  prove 

22 


that  this  is  not  the  case.  The  facts  overlooked  by  the  older 
writers  were  that  wage-earners  are  both  ignorant  of  and 
indifferent  to  the  dangers  to  which  they  are  exposed.  But 
if  wages  are  not  higher  in  dangerous  trades,  workmen  and 
their  families  ought  to  be  protected  in  some  other  way 
against  the  losses  industrial  accidents  entail.  These  losses 
are  really  portions  of  the  cost  of  producing  goods.  Con- 
sumers, therefore,  for  whose  benefit  production  is  carried 
on  should  be  made  to  pay  for  them.  But  consumers  cannot 
be  reached  directly.  The  simplest  plan  is  to  throw  the 
cost  of  workmen's  compensation  upon  employers  and  de- 
pend upon  them  to  pass  it  on  to  consumers,  as  they  do  their 
other  expenses  of  production,  in  the  form  of  somewhat 
higher  prices  for  their  products.  Under  this  plan  con- 
sumers pay  for  what  goods  cost  in  maimed  bodies  and 
shortened  lives,  as  well  as  for  what  they  cost  in  wear  and 
tear  of  plant  and  used  up  raw  materials.  No  one  has 
reason  to  complain  of  the  new  policy  and  a  great  social 
evil  is  remedied. 

As  for  industrial  accidents,  so  for  the  other  evils  that 
have  been  enumerated,  economists  are  now  convinced  that 
no  merely  individualistic  remedies  are  adequate.  The.  in- 
dividual, even  the  intelligent  individual,  is  too  confined  in 
his  outlook  and  too  blinded  by  belief  in  his  own  immunity 
to  take  the  measures  for  his  protection  which  the  situation 
calls  for.  Such  measures  to  be  adequate  must  be  compre- 
hensive. Based  on  full  knowledge  of  the  social  conse- 
quences of  the  evils  to  be  remedied,  they  must  be  adopted 
as  parts  of  a  constructive  policy  of  social  betterment,  and 
compulsion  must  be  used  to  bend  the  will  of  the  individual 
to  what  is  so  clearly  for  the  general  good. 

Does  this  change  in  the  attitude  of  economists  in  refer- 
ence to  labor  problems  mean  that  they  are  becoming  social- 
istic? If  "socialistic"  is  used  to  designate  every  departure 
from  a  rigid  laissez-faire  policy,  then  the  economists  of  to- 

23 


day  are  undoubtedly  more  socialistic  than  were  the  econom- 
ists of  thirty  or  even  ten  years  ago.  Most  economists,  how- 
ever, would  draw  a  sharp  distinction  between  the  wid- 
ened field  of  activity  on  which  they  desire  to  see  the  state 
enter  and  socialism.  To  eager  socialists  every  step  in  the 
direction  of  a  broader  social  policy  appears  to  be  a  step 
toward  their  cherished  goal.  But  it  is  a  long  road  that 
has  no  turning.  The  road  which  progressive  countries  are 
now  traversing  is  undoubtedly  away  from  the  narrow  indi- 
vidualism of  the  past;  but  the  novel  social  policies  which 
are  being  tried  in  this  country  and  in  that  may  prove  not 
advances  toward  socialism,  but  rather  bulwarks  against 
the  revolutionary  changes  in  our  fundamental  institutions 
of  private  property  and  freedom  of  contract  which  social- 
ists advocate.  It  was  with  this  deliberate  purpose  in  view 
that  Germany  took  the  lead  in  this  field  of  social  legisla- 
tion in  the  early  eighties.  And  it  is  with  this  expectation 
that  most  economists  have  lined  themselves  on  the  side  of 
such  legislation.  But  it  is  a  rash  prophet  who  would  at- 
tempt to  say  just  how  far  the  extension  of  governmental 
functions  may  go  without  narrowing,  instead  of  widening, 
the  field  of  effective  individual  liberty.  One  great  change 
that  has  certainly  occurred  is  that  the  cry  of  socialism  has 
ceased  to  weigh  with  intelligent  people  as  an  argument 
against  any  proposed  policy.  The  question  which  interests 
present-day  economists  is  not  whether  a  given  measure  is 
socialistic  or  individualistic,  but  rather  whether,  consid- 
ering all  its  effects  direct  and  indirect,  it  is  socially  expedi- 
ent. In  this  spirit  they  welcome  experiments  along 
socialistic  lines;  but  with  a  caution  born  of  knowledge  of 
past  failures  they  prefer  that  the  more  radical  of  these 
experiments  be  tried  by  other  countries  first.  This  change 
is  only  part  of  the  larger  change  that  has  occurred  in  all 
fields  of  thought.  In  desiring  to  see  the  contentions  of 
socialists  submitted  to  experimental  proof,  rather  than 

24 


silenced  by  a  priori  objections,  economists  merely  exhibit 
their  kinship  with  scientists  in  other  fields.  They  also  dis- 
trust the  absolutist  temper  and  prefer  the  open  mind. 

In  these  lectures  it  has  become  the  custom  to  say  some- 
thing about  the  motives  which  dominate  specialists  in  the 
different  fields  of  knowledge  that  are  passed  in  review.  As 
regards  economics,  the  principal  incentive  of  those  who 
have  most  distinguished  themselves  in  the  science  has  cer- 
tainly not  been  mere  love  of  truth.  Economists  love  truth, 
I  hope,  as  ardently  as  the  natural  scientists.  They  also  find 
outlet  for  their  play  instinct  in  the  intellectual  exercises 
afforded  by  the  problems  which  they  are  endeavoring  to 
solve.  Were  it  not,  however,  that  they  hoped  to  contribute 
ever  so  little  to  the  progress  of  industrial  society  toward 
a  more  satisfactory  adjustment  of  its  burdens  and  rewards, 
few  would  continue  to  devote  themselves  to  a  specialty 
which  presents  so  many  baffling  and  discouraging  features. 
While  not  insensible  to  the  ideals  of  scientific  accuracy  and 
fidelity  to  truth  which  inspire  all  honest  scholarship, 
economists  are,  therefore,  frankly  utilitarian  in  their  mo- 
tives and  aims. 

Looking  back  over  the  development  of  their  science  dur- 
ing the  last  one  hundred  years,  economists  have  many 
reasons  for  satisfaction.  That  the  science  itself  should 
have  made  progress  is  a  matter  of  course.  What  was  not 
so  inevitable  is  its  increasing  influence  on  other  fields  of 
thought  and  on  practical  policies.  Historians,  who.  used 
to  stigmatize  insistence  on  the  importance  of  industrial 
history  as  narrow  and  doctrinaire,  are  now  willing  to  con- 
cede everything  that  reasonable  economists  would  claim 
for  this  special  branch  of  investigation.  As  economists 
have  grown  more  modest  and  more  truly  scientific,  prac- 
tical business  men  have  become  less  prone  to  brush  aside 
their  arguments  as  "mere  theory"  and  more  ready  to  recog- 
nize that  the  social  aspects  of  business  also  merit  considera- 

25 


tion.  Even  more  gratifying  is  the  increasing  part  which 
economists  are  being  allowed  to  play  in  the  drafting  of 
legislation  and  in  the  administration  of  laws  whose  enact- 
ment they  have  helped  to  secure.  The  appointment  of 
economists  on  tax  commissions,  industrial  commissions, 
trust  commissions  and  labor  commissions  has  become  so 
common  as  now  to  be  taken  for  granted  even  in  the  United 
States,  where  it  is  a  very  recent  development.  In  fact,  the 
appreciation  in  which  economic  studies  are  held  is  growing 
so  general  that  there  seems  just  now  danger  that  too 
much,  rather  than  too  little,  importance  may  be  attached  to 
the  views  of  academic  economists.  When,  as  recently  in 
a  neighboring  state,  a  judge  of  one  of  our  highest  courts 
solemnly  declares  that  the  time  is  at  hand  when  the  courts 
of  last  appeal  will  cite  the  writings  of  economists  rather 
than  legal  precedents  in  justification  of  their  decisions,  the 
sense  of  elation  that  economists  cannot  but  feel  is  tempered 
by  misgivings  as  to  their  preparedness  for  this  serious 
responsibility.  The  one  reassuring  thought  which  en- 
courages them  when  they  contemplate  the  extent  of  their 
ignorance  is  that  which  Professor  Robinson  threw  out  as 
a  life  preserver  to  support  his  historical  colleagues  through 
the  flood  of  his  destructive  criticism.  Little  as  economists 
know  about  economics,  they  at  least  do  not  know  less  than 
anybody  else. 

But  the  chief  reason  for  the  economist's  satisfaction  is, 
after  all,  the  change  in  his  own  attitude  in  reference  to 
social  progress.  The  wages-fund  theory  and  the  Malthu- 
sian  doctrine  of  population  made  economics  seem  a  dismal 
science  to  the  idealists  of  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  The  theory  of  distribution  that  is  now  accepted 
and  the  practical  measures  which  follow  from  it  have 
changed  economics  into  a  science  full  of  hopefulness  for 
the  future.  Disagreeing  still  on  some  fundamental  prob- 
lems and  on  many  of  the  practical  applications  of  eco- 

26 


nomics,  the  economists  of  today  are  nevertheless  gradually 
coming  to  agreement.  Moreover,  out  of  the  clash  of  their 
conflicting  opinions  a  definite  program  of  economic  re- 
form is  emerging,  which  promises  to  make  them  as  effective 
in  promoting  a  broad  and  liberal  policy  of  social  better- 
ment in  the  future  as  they  have  been  in  some  periods  of 
the  past  in  sincerely,  but  mistakenly,  opposing  every  de- 
parture from  a  strict  laissez-faire  policy.  Economics  still 
lacks  the  charm  for  the  scientific  mind  that  comes  from 
precision  of  statement  and  exactness  of  reasoning  from 
premises  to  conclusion,  but  no  one  need  now  be  deterred 
from  studying  it  from  the  fear  that  it  deals  with  colorless 
abstractions  or  leads  to  a  jaundiced  view  of  life.  It  is  in- 
tensely human  in  its  interest,  and  the  goal  of  progress 
toward  which  it  points  is  as  full  of  promise  of  wellbeing 
for  mankind  upon  this  earth  as  have  been  the  dreams  of 
poets  or  the  aspirations  of  philosophers  in  any  by-gone  age. 


27 


£ut/ <     <r-^\*liA> 


7 


p^t-LJ^ 


^u. 


^  Uu  ,*-*  ^^,  t^H*  ^    jj5^,_ 

/TXa  *~v- Otr1-^  /W^>u^  *~fc?£hr'ti;  ^** 


j^     yu**f**~4-^> 


fr.        xw     w^->4h~0   ^    ^-^V    W*X    ^>^- 

yU^  ^aZi  (X+^ 


^JKuuJ:      L^^Ai    «^-^Hu^   t>t^i-#<^  *  ^<*A4  ""^^ 


.«— -^.       Ax******1^** 


A  SERIES  of  twenty-one  lectures  descriptive  in  non-technical  language  of 
the  achievements  in  Science,  Philosophy  and  Art,  and  indicating  the 
present  status  of  these  subjects  as  concepts  of  human  knowledge,  were 
delivered  at  Columbia  University,  during  the  academic  year  1007-1908,  by 
various  professors  chosen  to  represent  the  several  departments  of  instruction. 

MATHEMATICS,  by  Cassius  Jackson  Keyser,  Adrain  Professor  of  Mathe- 
matics. 

PHYSICS,  by  Ernest  Fox  Nichols,  Professor  of  Experimental  Physics. 

ASTRONOMY,  by  Harold  Jacoby,  Rutherfttrd  Professor  of  Astronomy. 

GEOLOGY,  by  James  Furman  Kemp,  Professor  of  Geology. 

BIOLOGY,  by  Edmund  B.  Wilson,  Professor  of  Zoology. 

PHYSIOLOGY,  by  Frederic  S.  Lee,  Professor  of  Physiology. 

BOTANY,  by  Herbert  Maule  Richards,  Professor  of  Botany. 

ZOOLOGY,  by  Henry  E.  Crampton,  Professor  of  Zoology. 

ANTHROPOLOGY,  by  Franz  Boas,  Professor  of  Anthropology. 

ARCHAEOLOGY,  by  James  Rignall  Wheeler,  Professor  of  Greek  Archae- 
ology and  Art. 

HISTORY,  by  James  Harvey  Robinson,  Professor  of  History. 

ECONOMICS,  by  Henry  Rogers  Seager,  Professor  of  Political  Economy. 

POLITICS,  by  Charles  A.  Beard,  Adjunct  Professor  of  Politics. 

JURISPRUDENCE,  by  Munroe  Smith,  Professor  of  Roman  Law  and 
Comparative  Jurisprudence. 

SOCIOLOGY,  by  Franklin  Henry  Giddings,  Professor  of  Sociology. 

PHILOSOPHY,  by  Nicholas  Murray  Butler,  President  of  the  University. 

PSYCHOLOGY,  by  Robert  S.  Woodworth,  Adjunct  Professor  of  Psy- 
chology. 

METAPHYSICS,  by  Frederick  J.  E.  Woodbridge,  Johnsonian  Professor  of 
Philosophy. 

ETHICS,  by  John  Dewey,  Professor  of  Philosophy. 

PHILOLOGY,  by  A.  V.  W.  Jackson,  Professor  of  Indo-Iranian  Lan- 
guages. 

LITERATURE,  by  Harry  Thurston  Peck,  Anthon  Professor  of  the  Latin 
Language  and  Literature. 

These  lectures  are  published  by  the  Columbia  University  Press  separately  in 
pamphlet  form,  at  the  uniform  price  of  twenty-five  cents,  by  mail  twenty-eight 
cents.  Orders  will  be  taken  for  the  separate  pamphlets,  or  for  the  whole  series. 
Also  to  be  had  in  one  volume,  blue  cloth,  at  $5.00  net;  by  mail,  $5.27. 


Address 

THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

Columbia  University,  New  York 


JP* 


t 


JT 


